County behavioral health staff told the commission on July 2 that Plumas County’s housing element is currently out of compliance with state requirements, and that the noncompliance made the county ineligible for the largest of three remaining rounds of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding for a proposed behavioral‑health housing project.

“We have been out of compliance since July 1 of 2024,” the staff member reported, noting that the Department of Housing and Community Development said the county can reapply in April 2026 but that round 3 (the larger allocation) is no longer available because of the compliance issue.

The commission was told the ineligible round 3 was “a little over $200,000”; round 4 is roughly $100,000 and round 5 about $76,000, as discussed in the meeting. Staff said the county must be in compliance by June 30, 2026 to be eligible for later rounds.

Staff reported the county previously allocated funds for a proposed development with a housing partner (discussed in the meeting as an RCHDC/CHDC partnership) and that those project plans required significant outside financing. The behavioral health representative said the county initially allocated about $800,000 in development support but that predevelopment restrictions and MHSA rules reduced the available MHSA contribution for direct development to about $350,000; an additional $175,000 was described as contingent on future PLHA rounds if the housing element is brought into compliance.

Commissioners and staff discussed practical obstacles beyond funding: county staff cannot own and operate housing projects directly and need a nonprofit or developer to purchase and manage property; local organizations approached to act as property manager declined because of capacity concerns. Staff said the county posted for a continuing care coordinator position to focus on housing work and hoped that hire would advance project development.

No formal action was taken; commissioners asked for follow‑up and suggested continued outreach to potential developers or landowners. Staff noted timing constraints for prior disaster‑recovery funds and the complicated sequence of predevelopment, permanent financing and state requirements.